Rosa Maria Gonzalez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA MARIA GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-74077
11-72034
Agency No. A096-493-547
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Rosa Maria Gonzalez, a native
and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying her application for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74077 / 11-72034 2
reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss the
petition for review in No. 07-74077, and deny the petition for review in No. 11-
72034.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Gonzalez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her
qualifying relatives. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.
2009). Gonzalez’s contention that the agency erred by failing to consider hardship
to her eldest daughter is belied by the record.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez’s motion to reopen
for failure to establish prejudice. Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (prejudice
results when counsel’s actions may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).
We need not reach Gonzalez’s remaining contentions in light of these
conclusions.
In No. 07-74077: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
In No. 11-72034: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --